Kennesaw State University—a four-year institution—and the third-largest university in the University System of Georgia, is a comprehensive university with expanding undergraduate and graduate programs in Kennesaw, Georgia, one of metropolitan Atlanta's fast-growing northwest suburban communities.

Institutional Mission and Student Body Profile

Kennesaw State University is one of four comprehensive universities and the third-largest university in the state of Georgia. In fall 2014, Kennesaw State University (KSU) and Southern Polytechnic State University (SPSU) were completing the final steps for official consolidation in January of 2015. One of these steps was the creation of the new mission statement which affirmed KSU’s commitment to student success.

In fall 2015, the new KSU welcomed its first fall class to the Kennesaw and Marietta campuses. Over the past year, many of the ideas to enhance student success that were generated over the course of the consolidation with the expert input of the administration, staff, and faculty have been set into motion. The fall 2016 enrollment represents a 7.7% increase over the combined enrollments for KSU and SPSU in fall 2014. Retention and progression rates are increasing – KSU students are thriving. Retention, progression, and graduation (RPG) has become the item of premier importance across the institution and is becoming the driving force for determining budget priorities.

Enrollment

In fall 2016, KSU enrolled 35,018 students, a 5.3% increase over fall 2015. KSU has the second largest beginning freshmen enrollment in the USG and both the percent and number have steadily increased over the last 5 years. In the 2015 CCG report, the change in the gender ratio for fall 2014 first-time freshman was noted. The fall 2016 overall enrollment gender ratio has changed with women making up less than half of enrollment. This makes Kennesaw one of two USG institutions with a majority male enrollment. Additional enrollment information is available in Appendix A.

Table 1. KSU Enrollment Fall 2012-2016

Enrollment

Fall 2012

Fall 2013

Fall 2014

Fall 2015

Fall 2016

Total Enrollment

30,806

31,178

32,500

33,252

35,018

Undergraduate

28,086

28,353

29,563

30,480

32,166

Full-time

74%

74%

74%

72%

76%

Female

50%

50%

50%

50%

48%

Degree-Seeking

99%

98%

98%

98%

99%

First-time

14%

14%

16%

17%

17%

Transfer-ins

12%

12%

11%

10%

9%

First-time Freshmen Profile

Total First-Time Freshmen

3,984

4,034

4,665

5,032

5,347

Full-time

97%

97%

97%

97%

97%

Female

50%

50%

47%

49%

47%

Race/Ethnic Minority

30%

33%

35%

37%

39%

Pell Recipients

37%

37%

36%

Source: IPEDS Enrollment Reports

Retention

KSU’s retention rates are higher than the rates for USG comprehensive universities but have lagged 2-3% behind the USG system total. The first class for the new KSU, fall 2015, broke the 80% retention mark. As shown in Table 2, retention rates for selected groups are equal to or higher than the rate for the USG comprehensive universities. KSU retention rates are within 3% of the USG total rates.

Table 2. Freshmen Retention Rates for KSU with USG Comparisons

Freshmen Retention Rates 2011-15

Fall Cohort Year

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Full-time

3,458

3,834

3,881

4,500

4,887

KSU Retention Rate

76%

76%

78%

78%

80%

USG Comprehensive

74%

75%

77%

77%

USG Total

78%

79%

80%

80%

Females

KSU Retention Rate

77%

78%

79%

80%

USG Comprehensive

75%

77%

79%

78%

USG Total

77%

79%

81%

81%

Males

KSU Retention Rate

75%

72%

76%

75%

USG Comprehensive

71%

72%

74%

75%

USG Total

75%

76%

77%

78%

Black

KSU Retention Rate

75%

80%

80%

79%

USG Comprehensive

75%

76%

79%

79%

USG Total

70%

73%

75%

75%

Hispanic

KSU Retention Rate

79%

77%

79%

77%

USG Comprehensive

73%

76%

75%

76%

USG Total

78%

78%

78%

78%

White

KSU Retention Rate

76%

74%

76%

77%

USG Comprehensive

73%

75%

76%

76%

USG Total

79%

79%

80%

80%

Source: IPEDS Enrollment Reports

Degree Completion and Graduation Rates

The number of bachelor’s degrees conferred increased 9% over five years, as shown in Figure 1. The number of STEM degrees conferred has increased 23% in the same time period and now comprise almost one-third of baccalaureate degrees completed. More detail is available in Appendix B regarding the characteristics of graduates.

Figure 1. Bachelor’s Degrees Conferred (Including % of STEM)

Although the number of degrees awarded to all students has increased, the graduation rate for first-time, full-time students decreased for KSU for the three fall cohorts from 2007-2009. As detailed in Table 3, USG comprehensive universities and the USG as a whole showed a similar decline for these years. Additional detail on graduation rates is available in Appendix C.

Table 3. 4-Year and 6-Year Graduation Rates

Graduation Rates

Cohort Year

Fall 2007

Fall 2008

Fall 2009

Fall 2010

Fall 2011

Full-time

2,824

3,166

3,210

3,443

3,459

4-year (100%)

14.9%

15.7%

15.3%

13.7%

12.8%

6-year (150%)

43.6%

42.5%

41.7%

42.0%

USG Comprehensive

4-Year (100%)

18.9%

19.2%

18.2%

18.7%

18.0%

6-year (150%)

44.9%

44.1%

42.7%

USG

4-year (100%)

26.8%

26.5%

26.0%

25.4%

25.5%

6-year (150%)

53.5%

52.6%

51.0%

Source: USG, Academic Data Mart

It is helpful to look at retention rates and graduation rates together. In figure 2, the lines represent retention rates and the columns represent graduation rates. Retention rates were relatively flat for first-year, second-year, and third-year retention from the period of 2007-2011. The bottom section of the column is the 4-year graduation rate, the middle section is the percentage of students who graduated in 5 years, and the top section is the percentage of students who graduated in 6 years. The bold number at the top of the column is the 6-year graduation rate.

In examining data like these, we can look at the relationship between retention and graduation. We believe that the retention programs described in KSU’s Complete College Georgia plan are contributing to the rise in retention rates. This year’s report shows KSU’s progress as a world-class university committed to student success.

Institutional Completion Goals, High-Impact Strategies and Activities

Over the past year, our CCG initiatives grew to keep pace with a comprehensive university and it became clear that our CCG reporting had not captured the scope of the retention, progression, and graduation (RPG) work being planned and implemented on both campuses. There are RPG initiatives in every college, in many departments in Student Affairs, and in the operational units providing indirect services and support to our students. An expanded CCG committee was created to complete an inventory of programs and initiatives, discuss points of intersection and opportunities for synergy, review associated metrics, and create content for a CCG website currently under construction.

For this 2016 report, there are four broad categories that will be addressed. These are: 1) Advising, 2) DFW Rates, 3) Predictive Analytics, and 4) Beyond Financial Aid.

High-impact Strategy

Advising – Advising was restructured with a goal to provide students with superior proactive advising throughout their academic career.

Related Goal

CCG Goal 4: Provide intentional advising to keep students on track to graduate.

Demonstration of Priority

KSU has committed considerable time and resources to the restructuring of advising to support the needs and meet the demands of over 32,000 undergraduate students. Academic advisors play a critical role in providing support and information to students to meet their academic and graduation goals. A single advising platform, used in conjunction with DegreeWorks, allows advisors to readily identify and proactively reach out to students who are experiencing or are at-risk for experiencing difficulties.

Eight new professional staff academic advisor positions were added to increase the number of advisors to fifty-three. The advising lines were assigned to the colleges with the greatest need. The Office of the Senior Vice Provost was created to provide institutional oversight for retention, progression, and graduation. Reporting to the Senior Vice Provost, an Assistant Vice President (AVP) was hired to shape the university’s vision, mission, and goals for academic advising (see Appendix D), as well as the university’s assessment and professional development efforts related to advising. The AVP provides support to the deans and advising directors in each college, and establishes the university's best practices regarding academic advising.

Communication and coordination of advising efforts across the institution were enhanced through the creation of the Advising Network and the Advising Council. The Advising Network is comprised of faculty and staff who are actively involved in advising, although anyone may attend the monthly meetings. The Advising Council, chaired by the AVP, is a body comprised of advising leadership from the eleven undergraduate colleges and athletics. These groups are actively involved in enhancing standardization of the advising process (i.e., using similar tools and similar methods) so that students will have continuity in their advising across their academic career. Standardization is supported through the creation and fall 2016 release of an Advising Handbook and the implementation of the Education Advisory Board’s Student Success Collaborative (EAB-SSC) platform for advisors.

Over the last year, the precedent for more intentional advisor training has been set. There has been increased utilization of professional development opportunities and increased participation in the National Academic Advising Association (NACADA). Students will benefit from improved communication across the campus and the expanded professional skill sets of their advisors.

Additional advising and advising-support activities include the ongoing use of graduation coaches for specific populations and the creation of program maps to be released in spring of 2017.

Measures of Progress and Success

Measure, metric, or data element: Although retention, progression, and retention are related to advising, the use of the EAB-SSC platform allows the development of more fine-grained analyses to include outcomes related to student risk and advising interactions.

Baseline measures: The data from fall 2016 will serve as the baseline data. Measures of interest include student and advisor activity data, and student risk levels. For example, From 08/28/16 to 10/28/16, there were 4,282 advising appointments. Of those appointments, 65% were scheduled, 34% were drop-ins, and 1% were no-shows.

Measures of success: Advising activity, or the preliminary outcomes, should be positively associated with better student outcomes. Students who are actively engaged in the process (e.g., keep appointments, respond to advisor outreach) should ultimately make better academic choices as evidenced by a reduced risk status and their continued progression towards graduation.

Lessons learned

Communication is crucial to the success of advising in a decentralized environment. The Assistant Vice President provides a single point of contact for multiple stakeholders to ask questions or comment.

For students, earning a “D” or an “F” or withdrawing with a “W” in a course means additional time and tuition costs. For the institution, a high DFW rate in gateway courses can contribute to bottlenecks as students who need to repeat the course compete with students who need to take the course to stay on track. KSU is participating in two national initiatives, planning an early alert system, and continuing the Supplemental Instruction program to address high DFW courses.

G2C is a national effort led by the John N. Gardner Institute for Excellence in Undergraduate Education to improve student success in large enrollment gateway courses that traditionally have high failure (DFW) rates. KSU is one of thirty institutions nationally and one of ten in the USG participating in the initiative. G2C is a three-year initiative that provides KSU with an institution-wide, data-driven, evidence-based process that includes policy review and course redesign. The five gateway courses for KSU are: ACCT 2100-Introduction to Financial Accounting, HIST 2112-US History Since 1890, MATH 1111-College Algebra, MATH 1190-Calculus I, and SCI 1101-Science, Society, and the Environment.

Faculty-led committees within each of the course disciplines have been formed and are leading the G2C effort. These courses will also be included in the fall 2017 pilot of the early alert system.

b) Re-Imagining the First Year (RFY)

KSU is one of 44 institutions selected for the RFY project sponsored by the American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU), with support from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The goal of the three year project (2016-2018) is to substantively alter the first-year experience for students which includes improving DFW rates through an early alert system.

The EAB-SSC platform rolled out in summer 2016 includes early alert functionality. Each college has created a committee, comprised of advisors and faculty members, to examine the RPG data for that college, determine student success markers to be included in the EAB-SSC platform, and to develop their early alert strategy and responses. The Office of Student Affairs is partnering with Academic Affairs to extend the use of the EAB-SSC platform to specific populations (e.g., fraternities and sororities, on-campus residents). The SA/AA partnership will enhance the coordination and delivery of academic and student support services.

c) Supplemental Instruction (SI)

SI provides structured, student-facilitated help sessions for students enrolled in courses that traditionally have high DFW rates. Students may choose to attend sessions conducted by a student who was successful in the course with the same instructor. These student facilitators provide assistance with devising learning strategies based on course content and instructor delivery style.

Course offerings have been expanded from the initial lower-division math and science courses to include upper-division courses in math, biology, chemistry, engineering, and architecture. Other lower-division course offerings include political science, economics and accounting.

Measures of Progress and Success

a) Gateways to Completion (G2C)

Measure, metric, or data element: Course redesign will contribute to a reduced DFW rate, a decrease in excess credits, and increased retention and graduation rates.

Baseline measures: DFW rates, calculated for 2014-2015, are shown in the table.

Enrollment

Sections

DWFI

Rate

Number of students with DWFI

ACCT 2100

2,132

29

28.8%

614

HIST 2112

4,774

81

21.6%

1,031

MATH 1111

3,125

71

27.4%

856

MATH 1190

1,686

36

38.1%

642

SCI 1101

3,227

20

25.5%

823

Interim measures of progress: Over the 2016-17 year, faculty will report on their redesign progress.

Measures of success: Data will also be disaggregated by special populations. Target reductions in DFWI % and goals for special populations are currently under discussion in the faculty committees.

b) Reimagining the First Year (RFY)/Early Alert

Measure, metric, or data element: An early alert system will contribute to a reduced DFW rate, decreased excess credits, and increased retention and graduation rates.

Baseline measures: Fall 2016 DFW rates will be the baseline measures.

Interim measures of progress: An early alert system must be utilized to be effective. Utilization data such as response rates and follow-up rates will be collected.

Measures of success: Increased success of identified students which includes lower DFW rates and increased progression from fall to spring and increased retention from fall to fall.

c) Supplemental Instruction (SI)

Measure, metric, or data element: Supplemental Instruction is designed to reduce DFW rates and contribute to increased retention and graduation rates.

Interim Measures of Progress: In fall 2015 and spring 2016, there were 157 sections of 24 unique courses offering SI. The SI leaders provided 1,916 sessions for a total of 22,821 contact hours for over 5,000 students. Students who attended SI were significantly less likely to make a DFW. See Appendix E for more details.

Measures of Success: Students who participate in SI have consistently shown to have significantly lower DFW rates than students in the same section who do not attend SI. Preliminary analysis of data collected between fall 2006 and fall 2013 revealed that students who participated in SI were significantly more likely to graduate than students who did not participate in SI. Across all sections and courses, 42.8% students who did not participate graduated by summer 2016. Of the students who participated in 10 or more SI session, 58.9% graduated.

SI Sessions Attended

Total Course Enrollment

Number of Graduates

Graduation Rate

None

17,641

7,555

42.8%

1-3

7,462

3,717

49.9%

4-6

2,395

1,300

54.3%

7-9

1,278

684

53.5%

10 or more

1,802

1,062

58.9%

Lessons learned

With enrollment increasing, lowering the DFW rate is critical to expanding capacity. All of these initiatives require cooperation and coordination between staff and faculty. Great detail is being paid to the development and implementation of measures designed to allow assessment of this multi-faceted approach.

KSU is committed to using data to support student success. There are three major predictive analytic platforms that are being utilized to increase operational efficiency and provide insights into student success.

If needed courses are unavailable, students may take courses that do not contribute to program completion to maintain their full-time status. Ad Astra’s Platinum Analytics facilitates data-informed academic course scheduling by leveraging data in Banner and DegreeWorks. Implementation of this software has helped academic departments schedule to meet identified course and seat demands, mitigate bottlenecks, and improve the progression of students toward graduation. Astra Schedule continues to be utilized to evaluate/allocate/reassign classroom space to colleges and academic departments based on projected enrollment demands.

EAB-SSC Campus is designed to support data-driven advising efforts that enable proactive, informed interventions with at-risk and off-path students. Ten years of KSU data have been mined to provide actionable risk assessments for students. Committees are being set up across campus to use these data for proactive, informed interventions with at-risk and off-path students. Advisors use data about student progress and likelihood of success or completion to assist students in making better course and program decisions. Successfully piloted in 2014, the platform was implemented campus-wide for the advising community in August 2016.

c) Education Advisory Board Academic Performance Solutions (EAB-APS)

EAB-APS is designed to provide information to multiple stakeholders to facilitate discussions surrounding enrollment, capacity, and resource allocation. This platform extends and enhances the information that, along with Ad Astra information, was the topic of a series of senior leadership resource allocation meetings in early 2016. Dashboards, currently under construction, will provide additional insight into productivity and will be available in spring 2017.

Measures of Progress and Success

a) Ad Astra Platinum Analytics

Measure, metric, or data element: Addition and reduction of courses and seats to match demand.

Interim measures of progress: Resources have been reallocated to meet projected demand. Changes to curriculum, student enrollment by major, transfer intake, and other factors will create projection changes over time.

Courses Addition

Seat Addition

Course Reduction

Seat Reduction

Net Seats

Fall 2014

Pre-consolidation

196

6,129

58

(1,769)

4,360

Fall 2015

961

15,944

467

(2,970)

12,974

Fall 2016

607

18,967

605

(10,607)

8,360

Measures of success: An examination of projected enrollment and actual enrollment revealed that enrollment was, on average, within 3.2% (approximately three seats) of Ad Astra’s projection.

Interim measures of progress: Interim progress measurements include student utilization of advising services, and academic and support services. Outreach and follow-up by advisors and other faculty and staff will also be measured to inform future prevention and intervention efforts.

Measures of Success: Students’ change in risk status (e.g., movement from at-risk to not-at-risk status) and the success of campaigns for targeted groups should contribute to a reduction in excess credits. Higher degree completion rates should occur for students who experienced a positive change in risk status. Baseline data for Phase I, primarily focused on advisor use and outcomes, are being collected in fall 2016. Baseline data for Phase II, which expands the platform and analytics to faculty and other staff, will be collected in fall 2017.

c) EAB-APS

The first of three data feeds has been established for EAB-APS. Baseline data will be collected in the second half of 2017.

Lessons learned

1) Consolidated data poses many challenges for both the functional and the technical groups working on these projects. Predictive analytics require historical data and fall 2015 is the first term with combined data for reporting for the Kennesaw and Marietta campuses. Data must not only be validated but understood within the context of the histories and happenings of two separate institutions. For example, success in college algebra was a positive predictor for pre-consolidation KSU while enrollment in college algebra was a risk factor for student success at SPSU. Although the limited overlap of majors makes it easier to tease out STEM versus non-STEM success indicators, the large number of undeclared students can be problematic for success models.

2) Ad Astra has stated we are one of the most (if not the most) high enrollment ratio institutions in their client base. Operating at these high enrollment ratios comes with drawbacks. In general, if a course is at max capacity, it is comparatively harder to estimate how much more capacity is needed beyond that 100% to meet future demand. In addition, pent-up demand from current students added with the institution's growth may create situations where projection spikes until the demand has been met. For example, if there is new demand from 50 students for a specific course and pent up demand from another 50 students for the same course, Ad Astra projects a need for 100 seats. If 100 seats are offered, meeting both the current and the pent up demand, then Ad Astra may only project demand for 50 students (the original 100%) for the following year.

High-impact Strategy

Beyond Financial Aid (BFA)

Related Goal

CCG1 - increase the number of degrees awarded

Demonstration of Priority

KSU provides an array of resources for students who may be experiencing financial difficulties. These resources include a limited amount of funds available for GAP scholarships, CARE center support (e.g., food pantry, connection with resources, assistance with homelessness, etc.), Emergency Retention Scholarships, and other population specific resources for students with unique and special needs.

A subcommittee of the CCG committee is completing the BFA self-assessment guide. The charge for this subcommittee is to compile data across the institution to gain a better understanding of the financial statuses and needs of our students, to discuss the legal and ethical uses of these types of data, and to determine next steps in linking students to needed information and services.

Measures of Progress and Success

Measure, metric, or data element: Ensuring students have the resources they need to complete their degrees should contribute to an increase in degrees awarded. Understanding student need and identifying current and potential areas to meet that need is necessary before more detailed measures can be devised. Initial data reveal gaps between retention rates and graduation rates. The inconsistencies over time in the magnitude of these gaps support the need for further data analysis.

Total Cohort and Pell Completion Rates for First-Time Freshman

4-Year Graduation Rate

6-Year Graduation Rate

FT Cohort

Pell

Gap

FT Cohort

Pell

Gap

2005

10.7

12.4

1.7

39.1

36.2

2.9

2006

12.9

10.9

2.0

40.6

40.3

0.3

2007

14.3

13.7

0.6

42.2

41.9

0.3

2008

15.2

13.1

2.1

41.4

36.1

5.3

2009

14.7

14.1

0.6

40.3

36.6

3.7

2010

13.4

10.9

2.5

2011

12.6

11.3

1.3

Total Cohort and Pell Retention Rates

for First-Time Freshman

1-Year Retention Rate

FT Cohort

Pell

Gap

2011

76.0

74.1

1.9

2012

75.1

72.8

2.3

2013

77.7

75.0

2.7

2014

77.6

75.5

2.1

Lessons learned

The subcommittee attended the USG sponsored Beyond Financial Aid Symposium in October 2016. Over the course of two days, it became clear that we needed to deepen our understanding of the needs of our students, increase our outreach efforts by communicating the availability of existing services, and identify and eliminate gaps between student need and availabile resources.